8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Aridaia.
9.  The applicant and Mr D. Varsamas requested the Prefect (Νομάρχης) of Pella to grant them permission to search for ore minerals in two specific areas. On 26 September 1983 and 10 October 1983 the Prefect of Pella issued them with two such licences.
10.  On 21 November 1985 and 4 December 1985 the applicant and Mr Varsamas, after conducting ore mineral research in the said areas, asked the Prefect of Pella to cede to them approximately 100.000 sq. meters of each area for exploitation. According to the Mining Code, minerals are owned by the State and may be assigned by it to any person, in accordance with the provisions of the law. The two applications were transmitted to the Minister of Industry.
11.  On 14 April 1986 the Minister of Industry, following an opinion of the Geological and Mineral Research Institute (Ινστιτούτο Γεωλογικών και Μεταλλευτικών Ερευνών), rejected the applications on the ground that the raw material traced in the area by the applicant and Mr Varsamas was not ore minerals but rather quarry matter.
12.  On 26 May 1986 the applicant and Mr Varsamas challenged before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens the refusal of the authorities to cede the areas requested.
13.  On 27 February 1987 the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens rejected their action (decision no. 3324/1987).
14.  On 24 March 1987 the applicant and Mr Varsamas appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens.
15.  On 30 November 1987 the latter quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the Minister of Industry should have prolonged the initial licences to conduct research instead of rejecting the applications for the cession of the areas in question (decision no. 4298/1987).
16.  The State, the applicant and Mr Varsamas appealed in cassation to the Council of State on 21 and 22 January 1988 respectively, on the ground that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not interpreted and applied the relevant legislation correctly. The State requested the confirmation of the decision of the first instance court while the applicant and Mr Varsamas requested the cession of the relevant areas.
17.  On 30 September 1991 the Council of State accepted the appeal of the State, set aside the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal on the ground that it had not interpreted and applied the relevant legislation correctly and referred the case to the Administrative Court of Appeal for re‑examination of the factual background. Having accepted the appeal of the State, the Council of State did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant's appeal (decision no. 2674/1991).
18.  The Court of Appeal registered the case on 26 November 1991. On 3 April 1992 it delivered an interlocutory decision ordering the hearing of university professors who had examined samples of the ores (decision no. 1839/1992).
19.  On 16 December 1992 the Court of Appeal considered that the disputed area should have been considered as containing ore minerals (decision no. 4367/1992).
20.  On 4 March 1993 the State appealed on points of law against the latter judgement questioning the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the adequacy of its reasons.
21.  In 1994 Mr Varsamas died.
22.  On 18 January 1995 the Council of State quashed the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal and sent the case back to it in order for the reasoning to be supplemented on certain factual matters. The Council of State considered that the Court of Appeal had not clarified why the exploitation of the ore minerals would be economically profitable (decision no. 247/1995). The Court of Appeal registered the case on 27 March 1995.
23.  On 29 December 1995 the Administrative Court of Appeal delivered an interlocutory decision ordering the applicant to produce further evidence concerning the economic profitability of the exploitation of the ore minerals (decision no. 6145/1995).
24.  On 23 December 1996, the Administrative Court of Appeal, having reconsidered the case, concluded in favour of the State, because the applicant did not adequately prove his allegations concerning the economic profitability (decision no. 5337/1996).
25.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant appealed again to the Council of State arguing that the Court of Appeal did not provide adequate reasons, did not interpret the applicable legislation correctly and breached the res judicata principle.
26.  On 17 December 1998 the Council of State dismissed the appeal in cassation (decision no. 4817/1998). The applicant received a copy of that judgment on 4 February 1999.